1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 12, 2017: (a) around 03:18, the Plaintiff driven BEXA while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.125% in front of Samsungdong Samsung-dong Samsungdong, Busan (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On July 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 25, 2017, but was dismissed on September 26, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 or 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the day when he returned home to the Republic of Korea after the Plaintiff’s ordinary drinking alcohol, the instant disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretion, taking into account the following: (a) not causing human and physical damage due to the driving of the instant drinking alcohol; (b) not causing the operation of the instant vehicle due to a large number of external business trips on the part of the Plaintiff (sales company of the Marinar); and (c) having experienced economic difficulties.

B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretion ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts, and whether the relevant disposition is legitimate or not.